Talk:Name change

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Does anyone have any information regarding name changes that involve only one name — i.e., no "last name"? I'm trying to research the subject now, but I'm coming up short. For example, what happens if "John Doe" wants to change his name to "John"? - Korpios 17:09, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reply

" I recently did my gender change on namechangeinc.com; they have some great resources/laws.

Reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.231.61 (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking into this in Canada and I know that there is an Australian man who has just one name and has a hell of a time with institutions and what not in regards identification and yet in the end they seem to go out of their way to accommodate him. He has a blog on the internet somewhere in this regard. There is also one man in America with just one name. I know in Canada there are people with one name but only in cases of having been born with one name, usually they are coming somewhere from south east Asia where it is common to have just one name and upon receiving citizenship they have the option to keep their one name or add another. I personally wanted to change my name to just one name but was refused as they cited that that would just cause too much confusion. My argument was that Native Americans used to have only one name and that the imposition of the rule requiring a minimum of two names is a European tradition and that there is no practical reason why one should not have a singular name as there are already people with just one name wandering about as I mentioned above. They denied my request, appeal and ignored my multiple letters of appeal to the local politician who had jurisdiction over such matters. 187.146.130.76 (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)God Dieux[reply]

Seems possible, see [1]. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 20:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your link is unfortunately dead

Tydoni (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.K. it's possible, and the Identity & Passport Service should accept the name, although on a passport, a single name will be shown in the surname field, with XXX (i.e. three X's) shown in the forename field - according to http://deed-poll-office.org.uk/restrictions-on-names#single-names Gixz (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British name restrictions[edit]

Here's an interesting question: If you can't get a name like "Prince" in England, what happens if someone like Prince Rogers Nelson (a.k.a. The Artist Formerly Known as Prince) moves to England? Can he get a driver's license, for example? Or are you allowed to move to England with a name like that but just can't adopt such a name once already there?

I seriously doubt the British government would force you to change your name. It's a jurisdiction issue, national boundaries of law, stuff like that. You'd have to be extradited or something. VolatileChemical (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, there are no such restrictions in English law on what can be used as a name. So Prince wouldn't have any trouble at all.Llykstw (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no explicit restrictions in British law, but some names would be considered illegal. However "Prince" would not be illegal. It would be considered a presumed title, and you may have difficulty obtaining a passport in the name, but so long as you can show that you are genuinely using it as your name, it would be acceptable. See http://deed-poll-office.org.uk/restrictions-on-names#presumed-titles Gixz (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cost?[edit]

Kind of a dumb question but....... Does it cost money to change your name? If so how much?

That depends on where you are and the exact circumstance. I have heard of someone in New York State, USA saying that it cost her $175 to get a legal name change through a court of law. See the article and I just said that there is no additional fee when getting a legal name change with naturalization. Sign your posts on talk pages next time, please. Otherwise, others cannot easily identify your posts.--Jusjih 07:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I live in Wisconsin, myself: when I changed my name in 1994, the county courts usually charged $90 for filing the name-change papers. (Luckily, I got the fee waived when the court found me indigent.) I also had to run a legal notice in the local paper so that creditors could keep track of me; that cost $75, though the paper has probably raised its fee since then. ISNorden 23:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.K. the only costs are for drafting a deed poll (which you could actually do yourself free of charge), and for a new passport (although there is no obligation in the U.K. to actually have a passport, unless you want to travel) (according to http://deed-poll-office.org.uk/faq#what-other-costs-will-there-be-to-change-my-name). A new driving licence is free for example. Gixz (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name change common in other religions[edit]

The article should mention that assuming a religious name is common--although not mandatory--in some pagan faiths. (especially Wicca and Asatru). ISNorden 00:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off Mithun Daa Maindani (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is formal process really required in USA?[edit]

The article states "There are differences in specific requirements among U.S. states, but usually a court order is needed to change names (which would be applied for in a state court)." I've read that under common law, people in many states are allowed to change their names without legal formalities; they just start using the new name. Can anyone supply a good citation to support support or refute the idea that a court order is usually needed? Also, this passage overlooks the very common situation of women changing their names when they marry, without a court order. Gerry Ashton 00:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Anyone can change their name anytime they like. That doesn't change your name on your Live Birth, Social Security account, DMV account, etc. You need to petition a Superior Court for that. Which involves multiple layers of background checks. Though you can introduce yourself by any name you like. There is no law against that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.84.89 (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Immigrants in the UK[edit]

Can immigrants in the UK (legal immigrants, that is) change their name under British law and keep their legal new name when they move to a different country or when they repatriate to their country of birth? Does a formal reason need to be given, or can anybody change their name for just personal reasons?

What did you do? 82.109.204.158 09:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC) me[reply]

Immigrants to the U.K. can change their name, but whether their country of origin accept the name is up to that country, so it depends. Gixz (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, no formal reason needs to be given, so long as it's not for a fraudulent purpose. However, if your name is considered for a frivolous purpose, you would have to show further evidence that you are using it for all purposes. See: http://deed-poll-office.org.uk/why-change-your-name Gixz (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citing court cases[edit]

Some recent edits concerning a US constitutional right to common law name changes are difficult to understand for those who are not lawyers. If at all possible, these should be changed or supplemented with a link to an on-line copy of the decisions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gerry Ashton (talk • contribs) 22:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Changing name for a company[edit]

I would like the article to include also something on this subject --YoavD 13:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge[edit]

Much of the content in legal name is better explained in this article, so I was tempted to redirect legal name to this article. But would it be better for the information to be on the broad-subject page than on the narrow-subject page? What do people think? —pfahlstrom 05:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect is a good idea--Riferimento 14:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but which should be redirected to which? I honestly don't know. —pfahlstrom 19:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the information in Legal name is pretty much an extension of Name change. merge them together or expand Legal name. Merge name change into Legal Name, because a name change is changing of a legal name. Tydoni (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep them separate - I was researching what exactly constitutes legal name, and it had nothing to do with a name change (rather going by one's middle name).

Discussions of legal name and name change are significantly intertwined, but I think that continuing to expand legal name will grow the distinctions between the two topics sufficiently to justify keeping them separate. --SpeakKindly 04:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support for merge, they are basically the same thing. andrewrox424 Bleep 12:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support of merging. Rhythmnation2004 01:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to Merge:

I think this page is very useful as its own entity, and the value that it has would be completely lost if it were embedded in another page. I found this page by searching for "name change" because I wanted to find specific information about this particular legal issue. If this page did not exist, I probably would not have been able to find the information at all. I think leaving this page as it is and developing its information will provide a significant benefit to the population who uses Wikipedia. Please consider this before moving forward with a merge. -Gabriel Cross (maybe soon to be Gabriel Owen Cross)December 6, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.70.138 (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This article is fairly long, and there is pleanty of worthwhile material that could be added to make it longer. The "Legal name" article could focus on issues unrelated to name changes, such as, do legal names really exist? If so, how are they assigned? Can a person have more than one legal name at the same time? What is the effect of using a name that isn't a legal name, when there is no intent of changing the name (i.e. pseudonym, nickname). I think there is pleanty of material to support both articles, if they were both fleshed out. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laws in Australia[edit]

I request info on name change laws and procedures in Australia, if anyone has it. 130.194.13.103 07:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australia is a federation and the law in respect of a change of name differs between states/territories. The article as it stands uses sources (both dead links) from one state, Queensland, and mistakenly assumes that is the uniform position. The law is similar but procedures, forms and fees differ.Otherthinker (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated this article with the above issues in mind. It is more up-to-date. I have removed the restriction around 12 months as it is not an issue in some states. Supcmd (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Involuntary migratory name changes[edit]

Can someone add something to the United States section about how citizenship authorities at Ellis Island gave lots of immigrants new American names upon their arrival at port, without, you know, asking them? We've all seen it in the movies, I want to read something factual about it. VolatileChemical (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the information I am reading states that that rarely happened at least at Elis island. It may have been changed by other clerks, teachers or by the person themselves. here is some info about it [1]http://genealogy.about.com/od/ellis_island/a/name_change.htm [2]http://www.genealogy.com/88_donna.html [3]http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=3893 Tydoni (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://genealogy.about.com/od/ellis_island/a/name_change.htm
  2. ^ http://www.genealogy.com/88_donna.html
  3. ^ http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=3893

Quebec[edit]

Why is Quebec featured here? Is the author of that section under the impression that Quebec is anything more than a territory in Canada? It's hardly important enough to warrant its own section simply because Quebec is so culturally preserved that they refuse to allow anyone to do anything at all. I mean, we might as well go ahead and toss in sections for every other province, all the states in the US, Hawaii, Alaska, maybe a few shanty-towns in Africa. 64.253.217.148 (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the section states, Quebec has a different process for Name Change (Civil Law) than the rest of Canada (Common Law), thus through its uniqueness is notable. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we explain the process for the rest of Canada then? Tydoni (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec is completely distinct from the rest of Canada because it operates as a civil law (rather than common law) jurisdiction. All the other provinces will follow similar processes based in statute. In Quebec, the process is based in an entirely different legal tradition and philosophical framework, hence why it merits distinction.

Canada[edit]

added some info on the rest of Canada Tydoni (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC) the Canada section should be expanded Tydoni (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Awkward part[edit]

"Time can be of the essence. Most states require name changes to be registered with their department of motor vehicles within a certain time frame. For example, South Carolina[7], and Wyoming[8] require a name change be registered with their office in a mere ten days."

Above, "time can be of the essence" and "mere ten days" are awkward phrases for an encyclopedia article. Please correct. --72.68.192.132 (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional right in US?[edit]

I have long suspected that the claims in the article about common law name changes being a constitutional right in the US was exaggerated. Now that Google Scholar allows one to see many legal opinions, I was able to read Jech v. Burch and found that it did not support the following claims, which I have removed from the article:

  • The federal courts have overwhelmingly ruled that changing one's name at will, by common law, is clearly one's constitutional right.

What Jech v. Burch actually found was that there was a constitutional privacy right for parents to give their child any name they wished, and the state would have to have a reasonable public purpose to legislate otherwise. While the common-law right to change one's name at will was mentioned, no finding was made about whether it was a constitutional right. (Ordinarily states are free to pass legislation that overrides the common law.) --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling and dates[edit]

Since the earliest version of this article only addressed the United States, US spelling should be used. Also, since the first full date was introduced in February 2004, and used the month, day, year format, that format should be used. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overview with country-specific articles?[edit]

Should the Name change article be restructured to just provide an overview of the concept, with links to an article for each country or region where sufficient information can be found to create an article? Would the article be far too long if country-specific information were placed in the Name change article?

Was it customary for English married couples to adopt surname of the partner with more land?[edit]

Dbpjmuf claims that it is nonsense that in the past a couple would, upon marriage, assume the surname of "the name of the person with the most land". The article cites a court case to support this claim, but I do not have access to the case. I recall reading that this custom did indeed exist in England, but am unable to find where I read that. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see details of the court case in the article - do you have details of the court case? Happy to dig around in archives for this or any other source. ...
I don't think a claim should be made if it's not verifiable. bobrayner (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The claim seems to have been made about the US. 'I recall reading that this custom did indeed exist in England' is not the normal standard for inclusion in WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this happened, but other considerations went into it, too. For example, if you had a choice, you'd normally have chosen a noble title over the landed partner. Names changed upon inheritance, too. 'Way back when, of course, "family names" didn't exist like we think of them today. The man who lived in the big house and owned the land around Foo was automatically John Foo, just like the man who owned the forge was John Smith and the man with the big oven was John Baker.
    Are you sure that Dbpjmuf's objection is to the "most land" part of the paragraph (which was cited) and not to the "assumed name" (which s/he might interpret as meaning "fake name")? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since all Dbpjmuf has had to say about it is "nonsense" I have ceased to wonder about his/her opinion. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a generalisation, taken across the centuries and classes over the country as a whole, the English custom has been for a woman to take the surname of her husband on marriage and for the children to take the surname of their parents. But there have been exceptions, and one of those has been where there was a desire to preserve the wife's surname on marriage, often because it claimed a particular distinction or pedigree. That could be done by retaining both surnames, usually the wife's first, and the husband's second, often separated by a hyphen(-), or by the husband using his wife's surname alone. In cases where the woman was the sole heir to a landed estate which her family had held for several generations it would be particularly likely that the husband would wish to take his wife's name, because that would contribute to his own prestige and that of their children. Unless his own name were also distinguished and he also held similar property he might well wish to use his wife's name alone. To that extent, therefore, it is true that one common circumstance in which a man might take his wife's name on marriage is where she has more land than him, but it would be far too simple to describe it as being the custom. To use a simple example, a wealthy woman marrying with a man with less money but from a more distinguished family would almost certainly adopt his name because it would confer status on her.
The business of changing name to that of a richer or more distinguished family could apply to boys and young men, by the way. Somebody without an heir might adopt, say, a nephew who would often change his surname accordingly - part of the reason for the adoption would not be just the inheritance of wealth but also expressly to provide continuity of the family. AJHingston (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US: name adopted by usage has same legal effect as court name change?[edit]

The article claims:

A person may be employed, do business, enter into contracts, sue and be sued under any name they choose at will.[1] Such a change carries exactly the same legal weight as a court-decreed name change, as long as it is not done with fraudulent intent.[2]

However, United States v. McKay does not fully support this. That case only says "[The right to change one's name by usage] is true in the absence of a restrictive statute, and is not abrogated by the fact that a procedure is provided by statute for the change of one's name." So a state may pass a statute eliminating or limiting the effect of a common law name change, just as a state may pass legislation overriding any other aspect of the common law. Kushner argues that a few states have indeed overridden common law name changes with respect to one,s true name, but even in those states one may still use, contract under, and be sued under, informal names, aliases, or nom de plumes, which are additional names one has in addition to one's true name. A common example is that while it is not illegal for a person to become known by a new name, few if any departments of motor vehicles would issue a driver's license in such a name without some official documentation that the name has changed. Can anyone with access to the other two cases look at them and see of they really support the claim in the article? Jc3s5h (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New York Laws quoted wrong[edit]

The article states that a marrying counple can choose a totally new surname. This is incorrect. According to the NYS Vital Records website, and various others, a surname MUST be the surname of either spouse, a former surname, or a combination of their surnames. Part of their surnames MUST be in the Onomasticsfinal surname. You cannot simply "make a new name" as the article says. For example. Ms. Smith and Mr. Jones can become the Jones', or the Smiths, the Smitones, or the Joths. But they cannot become the Jakobs family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.84.89 (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Example of Russian family name which sounds harmoniously and neutral[edit]

"Шведов" (rus). Such neutrality is seen in the page in Russian wiki where there are many people with this family name (statictics in time). It is related with onomastics and changing of the family name. RippleSax (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Name change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Name change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Name change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Name change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Reasons for changing one's name" is weird[edit]

Reasons for changing one's name is really long and has lots of marginal examples with no evidence. Can we clean this section up? WriterArtistCoder (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the William Smith problem[edit]

This was recently added to the list of purposes:

  • To correct errors after immigration to another country (e.g. a person's name is "William Smith" on their passport, however this name only appears as a surname on the passport- technically the person has no given names. A name change allows the person's given name to be William and the last name to be Smith, as intended).

I confess I do not understand this. Our William Smith is afflicted with a passport that mistakenly shows his whole name in the SURNAME field? In his shoes, I'd complain to the issuing authority – emigrating seems a drastic remedy. But okay, let's go with it. In the new country, the immigration authority copies the error and likewise issues him defective documents, and now he's fed up … —Tamfang (talk) 06:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

India[edit]

The India section should be rewritten as less of a WP:HOWTO. —Tamfang (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TAMANG 103.94.255.111 (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Name_change&oldid=1211227139"